In the charterparty dated 25 May 1965 the shipowners ("the owners") stated that the ship was "expected ready to load under this charter about July 1, 1965".

The charterparty also provided, in the first sentence of the cancelling clause, "Should the vessel not be ready to load (whether in berth or not) on or before July 20, 1965, charterers have the option of cancelling this contract, such option to be declared, if demanded, at least 48 hours before vessel's expected arrival at port of loading".

If the contractual rights which he has lost were capable by the terms of the contract of being rendered either less valuable or valueless in certain events, and if it can be shown that those events were, at the date of acceptance of the repudiation, predestined to happen, then in my view the damages which he can recover are not more than the true value, if any, of the rights which he has lost, having regard to those predestined events.All members of the court were viewing the case as from the date of acceptance of the repudiation (although only Megaw LJ said so in terms).

They were recognising, as was obvious on the facts as found, that the value of the contractual right which the owners had lost, as of the date of acceptance of the repudiation, was nil because the charter was bound to be lawfully cancelled three days later.

The problem with the Hong Kong Fir case, from the viewpoint of the shipping trade, was the "wait and see" principle.